2026 Caltrans MUTCD

Started by Max Rockatansky, March 17, 2026, 10:13:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

Max Rockatansky

#50
March 30, 2026, 02:30:22 PM   Last Edit: March 30, 2026, 06:17:44 PM by Max Rockatansky
I've talked to enough people that I'm confident the US Route shield change is real.  I put something out regarding G26 series being deleted on Gribblenation last night.  I don't know if I'll do something separate for the other changes yet.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2026/03/did-caltrans-just-kill-g26-cutout-us.html?m=1

Coincidentally this also was the 3,000th article to publish on the current version of Gribblenation.

kendancy66

#51
March 30, 2026, 11:58:34 PM  
In the first graphic (A.png), it looks like there was a missing paragraph, the would describe routes of US 101 and US 99. It would be just after the last paragraph on the left side, and continue to the upper rightmost paragraph that continues "... through Salt Lake City" which might be continuing the north south descriptions of US 91 as California's easternmost north south US route.

Tendies

#52
April 14, 2026, 12:03:43 AM  
Out of curiousity, Are there any pre-existing black background US route shields in California outside of national parks? Wouldn't surprise me if there was one that got knocked down and was hastily replaced with one sourced from out of state.
It's hard being EPIC in a world of FAIL.
Some men just want to watch the world burn. But I've got the lighter.
The world would be better without me. So I must continue living out of spite.

Scott5114

#53
April 14, 2026, 12:27:34 AM  
Caltrans has had its own weird standards for so long that they have a robust enough network of suppliers that I would think the need to get one from out of state would be minimal. If anything, California spec seems to make it across the lines to the surrounding states more often than the reverse (Nevada uses California-spec gantries, Arizona uses California-style traffic light masts, etc.)

If there are any black-background shields in California, I would imagine they would have been ordered by municipal governments which weren't aware of the California-specific designs.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Max Rockatansky

#54
April 14, 2026, 12:33:44 AM  
I'm not aware of any M1-4 US Route shields in California yet outside of Yosemite. 

fwydriver405

#55
April 14, 2026, 10:55:06 AM   Last Edit: April 14, 2026, 10:57:14 AM by fwydriver405
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 18, 2026, 02:37:42 AMFor what it's worth, Caltrans still has the California-specific shields listed as active specs on their site and has not made any moves to mark them as deprecated.

Not sure if this was pointed out before, but I noticed that references to the G26 (U.S. Route Shield/Marker) and the G27 (Interstate Route Shield/Marker) series signs were taken out of the Caltrans Sign Specification Drawings website recently sometime after 22 February 2026. Despite them being unlisted from the most recent version online, the PDF versions of such drawings are still on Caltrans website (if you have the URL):

California Sign Specification Drawings - Sign Specification Related Topics

Wayback Machine - 22 February 2026
Present version (as of 14 April 2026 10:55:50 EDT)

Relevant specifications that have been removed on the most recent version of the Caltrans website:

CA CodeSign DescriptionDate
G26-1(CA) (PDF)U.S. Route Shield (English units)6/3/02
G26-1(CA) (.PDF)U.S. Route Shield (Metric units)6/3/02
G26-2(CA) (PDF)U.S. Route Marker6/3/02
G27-1(CA) (PDF)Interstate Route Shield8/27/93
G27-2(CA) (PDF)Interstate Route Marker8/27/93


I was also browsing this thread (California 2012 MUTCD) and saw this part that was of interest:

Quote from: myosh_tino on January 23, 2012, 01:38:13 AMJust noticed California has adopted the 2012 California MUTCD which incorporates the 2009 national MUTCD.  I briefly skimmed through the new MUTCD to see what California changed.  Here are my brief observations...

Section 1A:
* California MUTCD shall not supersede current Standard Plans or Specifications and if there's a discrepancy, then the Standard Plans/Specifications will prevail.  If the Standard Plans/Specs are changed, then all MUTCD requirements must be met.  I find this particularly fascinating.  This must be one of California's "outs" for implementing some of the new requirements from the 2009 MUTCD.

This is the relevant line in the above post that I found in the prior MUTCD (CA MUTCD 2014 REV 9 Part 1 - Page 55):

Quote from: CA MUTCD 2014 REV 9 Part 1PART 1
GENERAL
CHAPTER 1A. GENERAL
Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices

Standard:
01 The responsibility for the design, placement, operation, maintenance, and uniformity of traffic control devices shall rest with the public agency or the official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of private roads open to public travel (see definition in Section 1A.13), with the private owner or private official having jurisdiction. 23 CFR 655.603 adopts the MUTCD as the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, bikeway, or private road open to public travel (see definition in Section 1A.13). When a State or other Federal agency manual or supplement is required, that manual or supplement shall be in substantial conformance with the National MUTCD.

01a On State highways, the California MUTCD shall not supersede Caltrans' Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions publications but all Standard statements of the California MUTCD shall be met. On State highways, whenever there is a discrepancy between the specifications and requirements contained in the California MUTCD, and those contained in Caltrans' Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions publications, Caltrans' Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions publications shall govern.

01b Nothing contained in the California MUTCD shall prevent Caltrans from modifying, changing or adopting new specifications as necessary. Any revisions to Caltrans' Standard Plans, Standard Specifications or the Special Provisions shall conform to the Standard statements of the California MUTCD.

However, in the 2026 CA MUTCD (Chapter 1D Provisions Applicable to Traffic Control Devices in General - Page 110), this line seems to have been removed and I can't seem to find any relevant variants of what was listed in the 2012 and 2014 CA MUTCDs...

Quote from: California MUTCD 2026 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2023 Edition, as amended for use in California) CHAPTER 1D. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES IN GENERAL

Section 1D.02 Responsibility and Authority for Traffic Control Devices
Standard:
01 The responsibility for the design, placement, operation, maintenance, and uniformity of traffic control devices in compliance with the provisions of this Manual shall rest with the public agency or the official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of site roadways open to public travel, with the private owner or private official having jurisdiction.

...which from my initial observation seems to further suggest this:

Quote from: jdbx on March 18, 2026, 12:31:41 PMI read the revised text and I think that a belief that the cutout US shield was dropped by mistake is wishful thinking.  I am going to be very sad to see them go, even though it is going to take years.  Each revision seems to move California more and more in-line with the rest of the country, which I think is kind of a shame, since unique signage and standards are one of the things that make this hobby so interesting.

Scott5114

#56
April 16, 2026, 04:24:50 AM  
Other deleted signs in this MUTCD include the humpback historical sign(s) and the double bear warning diamond (which is still in the NDOT sign book so far as I know).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

TheStranger

#57
April 16, 2026, 07:48:26 PM  
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 14, 2026, 12:33:44 AMI'm not aware of any M1-4 US Route shields in California yet outside of Yosemite. 

I have seen exactly one in recent years along the southbound ramp from US 101 to San Antonio Road in Mountain View.  Not sure if it's still there
Chris Sampang

ClassicHasClass

#60
May 14, 2026, 11:03:54 AM  
That's pretty close to the green-out BYPASS, also at Rengstorff.

Tendies

#61
May 15, 2026, 04:42:09 AM  
It's hard being EPIC in a world of FAIL.
Some men just want to watch the world burn. But I've got the lighter.
The world would be better without me. So I must continue living out of spite.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions